Abul Kalam AzadThough he remains an icon of secular nationalism in modern-day India, Azad was actually born in Mecca in 1888 and lived there till he was about seven. His father Khairuddin, a scholar-sufi originally from Calcutta, was persuaded by his Calcuttan disciples to return back to that city. Under the strict tutelage of his father, Azad continued his Islamic studies, though the young prodigy resented the restrictive and authoritarian manner in which this syllabus was taught; therefore, on his own, Azad secretly cultivated a taste for Urdu books and Persian poetry and even learnt to play the sitar. Around this time he also experienced a revulsion against the pir-worship of his father’s disciples and a diminished desire to succeed his father as pir.

By the time he was thirteen, Azad had become totally disillusioned with his Islamic training and found solace in the modernist writings of Sir Syed Ahmed Khan. However, the rationalism of Sir Syed only ended up reinforcing the boy’s earlier doubts about religion and Azad fell into a period of atheism which, according to him, lasted from the age of 14 to 22. During his later teenage years he seems to have come into close contact with the Hindu revolutionaries of Bengal. A combination of brief travel to the Middle East and his Arabic reading also exposed him more deeply to the reformist ideas of Sheikh Abduh of Egypt and the uncompromising nationalism and anti-imperialism of Mustafa Kamil.

After this period of spiritual homelessness, Azad, by the end of 1909, had an emotional/mystical experience that renewed his faith in religion and galvanised his personality in a dramatic way. Following this ‘conversion,’ Azad’s career really began to take-off in 1912 with the appearance of his Urdu journal Al-Hilal. Using breathtaking language, the journal simultaneously preached ‘pure’ Islam and Indian independence. Through his particular interpretation of Islam, Azad sought to bring Indian Muslims onto the platform of the freedom movement and to work in cooperation with Hindus who were already there. Despite his earlier admiration for Sir Syed, Azad was a harsh critic of the loyalist politics of Aligarh University.

Contrary to what is stated in certain types of historiography in India and Pakistan, Hindu-Muslim cooperation was not something that the Maulana adopted out of expediency or after his eventual meeting with Gandhi. Though the journal was ambiguous about specific methods of cooperation and post-Independence political arrangements, Hindu-Muslim unity was a sentiment he had been partial to from very early on in his life. This is evident in his poignant 1910 essay on the broad-minded Sufi saint Sarmad. However, there was a revivalist tone to Al-Hilal which critics would later say inadvertently reinforced communal consciousness among certain Muslims, even though the rhetorical devices had been used to arouse Muslims out of political lethargy.

When World War I broke out in Europe, the British government, viewing the journal as seditious, expelled Azad from Bengal and placed him under internment in Ranchi for three and a half years. A few weeks after his release, he met Mahatma Gandhi in Delhi for the first time; he accepted Gandhi’s program of non-cooperation and became the first prominent Muslim in India to declare himself an ally of the Mahatma. The massacres at Jallianwala Bagh had set all Indians afire, but Indian Muslims too in 1920 were greatly perturbed by the British government’s handling of the Turkish empire and the Khilafat during the War. In consultation with Azad, Gandhi persuaded the Congress to make the demand for the protection of the Khilafat a part of the national demand for freedom. The overlapping relationship between the Congress and the Khilafat Conference ended up bringing Muslims in large numbers to the freedom movement.

By 1921 Hindu-Muslim unity in the country seemed to be at an all-time high, and Azad was soon arrested. Yet this solidarity, while impressively achieved, proved to be a short-lived; upon his release in 1923, the country was passing through a particularly strong wave of communal rioting. In addition to other important factors, Muslims were shocked out of their reverie because of the Turkish government’s move to abolish the Khilafat. The ambiguous results of the Khilafat Movement has provoked criticism from some latter-day historians over Azad’s attempts at ‘fusing’ religion with politics. By unsystematically using Quranic arguments to support the Khilafat Movement and Hindu-Muslim cooperation, it has been suggested that Azad inadvertently cultivated identity politics among Muslims and allowed some of his ideas to be misconstrued by more communal interests.

Azad came to realize that in politics he could only be guided by the general principles of his religion and his knowledge of Indian Muslim history, rather than through invoking specific textual injunctions. By this time, he was also increasingly becoming an active member on the Congress stage, and his mediating skills largely prevented a split in the party between constitutionalists like Motilal Nehru and non-cooperatists like Vallabhai Patel. Though he continued his efforts to bring various Muslim organizations in line with Congress and involved in the freedom movement, in 1928 serious differences arose between the Congress and organizations like the Muslim League and the Khilafat Conference over the Nehru report. Azad was forced to break ties with the latter two organizations.

In 1930, the Congress declared complete independence as the goal of the national movement, and civil disobedience continued in vigour following Gandhi’s famous Salt March. Azad was imprisoned twice in a row during this period, and then released in 1936 along with the other Congress leaders. It was during these periods of imprisonment that the Maulana was able to complete the first edition of his famous Tarjuman al-Quran, his Urdu translation and commentary on the Quran. A second expanded edition was published during the 1940s. This incomplete translation and commentary would end up being his most definitive, though controversial, theological statement on how Indian Muslims could live out their religion in a religiously pluralist and politically secular environment. Hence, he articulated an Islam that was hospitable towards other forms of monotheism, especially Hinduism, and which placed emphasis on commonly held rules of righteous conduct. Though it was a landmark effort to inject a liberal ethos into Islam, the Tarjuman, unfortunately, did not have the overwhelming impact he hoped it would. The controversies that sprung up around this work, particularly from members of the ulema that were supporting him politically, dried up any inspiration in him to carry out the larger task of comprehensive religious reform and reinterpretation.

Following the passing away of M.A. Ansari in 1936, Azad became the most prominent Muslim in the Congress. By 1939 he was elected President of the party, though he was not the first Muslim to occupy that position. During the thirties the Muslim League had been gaining steam under Jinnah, and given special impetus because of grievances against certain Congress elected provincial governments. Azad’s presidential address at the Ramgarh session of the Congress in 1940 occurred just a few days before Jinnah’s historic Pakistan Resolution, and, in addition to articulating the point of view of the nationalist Muslims, became a classic statement on Indian secularism and a refutation of the two-nations theory.

Unfortunately, in addition to being caught in the cross-fire between Hindu and Muslim communalists, Azad by then had become subject to a trenchant campaign of criticism by influential Muslim political opponents. Many members of the religious and modern educated classes who earlier in his career had respected him and his religious ideas eventually turned against him because of this vilifying propaganda. Though he was capable of stirring large crowds with his brilliant oratory when called upon to do so, Azad’s pride and good manners kept him from publicly countering his detractors, and his intellectual and aristocratic nature kept him from reaching out directly to the Muslim masses when such an intervention was needed.

Azad was imprisoned for a fifth time in 1940, following a limited campaign of civil disobedience, and released a year later. By 1942, and following the more comprehensive Quit India Movement, he, along with the other Congress leaders, was imprisoned again. Upon his release in 1946, Azad remained Congress President throughout the War years. During his presidency, he tried to encourage Congress to come to terms with certain Muslim fears and to make some concessions with the League to avoid splitting the country; but both Jinnah’s single-mindedness and certain Congress mistakes prevented any settlement from occurring.

The Maulana reluctantly relinquished the Congress presidency in 1946, hoping that this would open an avenue between the Congress and the League; the latter party had refused to acknowledge a Muslim presence within the former one. He kept out of the coalition government formed that year, but in 1947, at Gandhi’s urging, he became Minister of Education. Azad had been totally opposed to Mountbatten’s plan for dividing the country, but by March of that year, Partition had become an inevitability; the polarization within the interim government, formed between the Congress and the League, and the rising communal violence throughout India had become too much. Though, like Gandhi, he was forced to accept Partition, he could never reconcile himself to it and was totally heartbroken by the event and its bloody aftermath.

Following Independence, he would hold the post of Minister of Education for ten years. Though he was not a particularly effective administrator, he did perform some important services such as cultivating technical, adult, and women’s education, and an academy of literature, as well as opposing the ejection of English as a national language. As in earlier years, he could not project the mystical piety of, say, a Baba Farid needed to draw the Muslim and Hindu masses to him; but his belief in religious pluralism and the need for a humanistic outlook broadened even further, and he openly identified parallels between Vedantic and Sufi thought in some of his addresses. His last years were marked by sadness and loneliness, a consequence of a life lived so individualistically. Abul Kalam Azad died in 1958 of a stroke and was buried in a dignified corner in Old Delhi near the Jama Masjid. It is a great irony that, while possessing a thorough Islamic training, Azad ended up espousing a secular nationalism informed by personal religious sensibilities, while his opponent Jinnah, a modernist with a minimal religious upbringing, ended up vying for a separate Muslim state informed by purely political considerations.

Marking the 3rd anniversary of the Iraq war.Now Playing: USA-Iraq
On Monday the 20th march 2006 the most companionate marauder George W Bush marked the third anniversary of invasion on Iraq, in The City Club, Cleveland, Ohio.

Addressing the gathering there he reinstated his doctrine of pre-emptive strike on the countries which possibly can stand against USA’s military hegemony around the world.

On the eve of 3 year of Iraq war people around the world protested against the American lead invasion and despite having lost support at home the USA president was very haughty in defending the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

“He said I well understand the concern of American people regarding the beheading scene and coffin laden transport planes landing in Washington and Andrew Airbase, because we (American) are very compassionate people”, we cannot see blood.

The war in Iraq is getting bloody. Iraqi people have been deprived of peace and security and necessities of life. Every day killing of innocent Iraqis by the American lead coalition forces is a compassionate gift of American people to there Iraqi victims.

The jails are overwhelmed with innocent Iraqis on the charges of aiding the insurgents or being accused of having suspicious conduct of course.Those who are stuffed into the American Administrated Jails are subject of physical and psychological abuse by the American guards and Jail personnel with this aim to inflict injuries on the soul of the men folk.

The prisoners are being raped by the Americans to inflict injury on their persona and soul and it is not carry out by a regime in the third world but by the advocates of the human rights and human liberties.

Insurgency in Iraq getting strength day by day while the US president is unexcused and in-exhausted in his assertions that Americans are wining the war on terror in Iraq and Afghanistan.

As many raped and tortured men will come out from American administrated Jails as triple will Americans see the number of insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Do Americans think the men you rape will sing the madrigals of Americans friendship and human friendship?

Do Americans think the women who are being widowed and the children who are orphaned will come to love USA and US soldier around the world and particularly in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Do Americans think the people who sleep with empty stomach will come to love with Americans?

Do Americans think the crops of hate they are sowing around the world will buy them security and peace of mind?

The only thing that can provide Americans and USA with security is readjustment of American foreign policy and non interference in the internal affairs of the sovereign countries around the world.

The American must have to redefine the terminology of terrorism and state terrorism these cannot be seen and treated as separate phenomenon, in matter of fact state terrorism is the breeding ground for the people of resentments I shall not call them terrorists, because if you close all the door to open ground and freedom you force the weakest to attack you with all his/her force to be killed or kill you to save his/her respect and life.

I can forecast that American can not win the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in the near future, on the contrary the war in Iraq will get worse then ever, because of American threat to Iran.

President George W Bush’s address to The Cleveland Club, Ohio was a preamble to soothe American opinion at home to make Americans ready to see an attack on Iran in the one year time.

“As president Bush said, we cannot ignore Iran which is threatening our ally the state of Israel.We (Americans) will not let Iran to acquire nuclear weapons to undermine our security in the region and despite having signing and nuclear deal with Indian during Bush’s South Asian visit.

The problem is with American double standard the day American will relinquish the diarchy in their foreign policy all threats to their security will vanish forever.

Mahatama Gandhi a hypocriteNow Playing: With thanks to the guardian newspaper uk.

< www.guardian.co.uk/southafrica/story/0,132262,1065018,00.html

.<

The blacks admired gandhi in the past but now they hate him. The word of fascist ghandhi is now used to describe mahatma gandhi which shows that all blacks hate gandhi. The evidence of fascist gandhi is here :

1) fascist gandhiGandhi had no love for africans. To him, the africans were no better than the untoucables of india. (guardian newspaper)

2) fascist ghandhiGandhi hated black people and ignored their suffering at the hands of the colonial masters while championing the cause of indians. (guardian newspaper)

3) fascist ghandhiWhile in prison in south africa, fascist ghandhi wrote " many of the native prisoners (blacks) are only one degree removed from the animal and often created rows and fought among themselves ". This remark shows that ghandi was a fascist ghandhi. (guardian newspaper)

4) fascist gandhiIn 1896, fascist ghandi said in bombay, "European sought to degrade indians to the level of raw kaffir (blacks are insultingly called KAFFIR in south africa) whose occupation is hunting and whose sole ambition is to collect cattle to buy a wife and then pass his life in indolence and nakedness." (guardian newspaper).

All these quotes are taken from the guardian newspaper of england and can be viewed in the above website.

Many people are now starting to believe that ghandi was a fascist and his new name is FASCIST GHANDHI.

MUMBAI, August 14: Whatever be the nature of the struggle for Indian independence and the stalwarts that strode the firmament, it was one bullet fired five months later that embedded itself in public memory. It is that bullet which can make claims to have created the first hero of post-Independence India.

I am not referring to Mahatma Gandhi, the victim, but Nathuram Godse, the assassin. We must understand that heroism is a loaded term. A deed is heroic if it has a clear-cut purpose and a complete fearlessness about the consequences. It does not seek legitimacy. In fact, its very authenticity lies in being able to stick its neck out in the face of opposition. There is no conflict between good and evil; it is merely a matter of degrees of justice.

In this light, Nathuram Godse is extremely important to modern-day Indian politics simply because he exposes the underworld face of it. He was poised between two aspects – the lowly hit man and the ideologue ‘dada’. His initiation into the major league depended entirely on how big his target was. If his anger was against the Mahatma’s appeasement of a community, then he would have just gone and killed a few Muslims.

This is borne out by his statement: “Before I fired the shots I actually wished him well and bowed to him in reverence.” He did not go on a rampage against a group (an earlier attempt of his to kill Gandhi was unsuccessful because he was afraid that the bystanders would get hurt) for that would have not made him a loyal soldier, a man who would do or die.

He did and he died. And his offence as well as defence had a clinical precision, quite unlike prevalent political skulduggery. His brother, Gopal, said in an interview: “Gandhi used to claim the Partition would be over his dead body. So after Partition when he didn’t die, we killed him.” It was as simple as that.

A little less than two years after he had killed the Father of the Nation, Nathuram was sentenced to death by hanging. Before the noose went round his neck, he spent five hours justifying his act. It was not to get clemency, but to declare that he was not a lowly gun-happy cad. His was not a revolution of the moment. In fact, it had the same fervor as the Gandhian ethos. By killing one man, his legacy proves that his 90-page testimony was revealing the spirit and the undercurrents running through the public mind that could not be articulated.

Look around you. What is the attitude towards the minorities and the lower castes today? The fact that these segments still have little power after 58 years of Independence shows that, ironically, it was the Mahatma who legitimized the Hindutva agenda. A modern state cannot be built upon the premise of a theological doctrine – whether it be for it or to oppose it. Gandhi patronized religion and casteism. He wanted the India of the villages, which is why the rural population still lives in the cave ages. He talked of Ram Rajya, which is what is sought to be ushered in by his opponents. He called non-violence a “weapon”; the truth is the freedom struggle was most certainly not bloodless.

Neither was the aftermath. If Gandhi has been deified, then so has his assassin. Overtly, it has been only a handful of people who commemorate his ‘martyrdom’ on November 15, they read out his Will at memorial services, and there is a full-fledged fan club that was orchestrated by his brother.

This gives it the legitimacy of an underground operation, somewhat like what happened during the freedom struggle. It can be safely assumed that Godse was possessed of a desire to further a cause; wreaking vengeance or merely ensuring his 15 minutes of fame would be looked on contemptuously by him.

The cause has had a cumulative effect. Just watch how the RSS and its acolytes operate and see how they are like underworld/terrorist outfits. There are the compulsory disciplinary drills, the initiation ceremony where you have to prove your loyalty and capability, the strict hierarchy, blind belief in an ideology based necessarily on the theory that you are being wronged by the Establishment, and the submergence of the individual self.

This is why I feel Godse was a mere pawn. He did not constitute a think tank; he used gut sense. He was paranoid; he had to ensure that his lowly status would not impede his path to self-righteous glory. He was irreligious, but communal. He rode on the back of cultural regression, impersonating a renaissance to posthumously become a figure in national politics.

Assassins and icons become heroes because they simulate the System even as they fight it. The anathema and anachronism acquire their own authority. Godse visited a brothel before he killed the Mahatma. Was it to prove his manhood, lest he be deemed a coward who could not face the consequences of an effeminate and impotent democracy? Or was he mimicking Gandhi, who once confessed that he was making love to his wife while his father lay dying in the other room?

Interestingly, although he was an active member of the Hindu Mahasabha and the editor of the newspaper Hindu Rashtra, he did not call out to the Lord as he prepared for his death. It was the secular Gandhi whose last words “Hey Ram” have become the Hindutva coinage.

Godse’s last wish was for his ashes to be submerged in the Indus River of an undivided India. That urn still stands.

By conventional standards, he is no hero. Yet, he was regurgitating the thoughts of many. In his own way, he was an idealist. It is only idealists who are truly afraid of failure, not because of inadequate capabilities but due to their inherent ability of not being able to follow rules. We just do not expect them to have any side other than the one we are comfortable dealing with.

Nathuram Godse may make us uncomfortable, but it was the bullet he fired soon after Independence that set in motion a legion of experiments with different kinds of truth. In modern terms, he would be the godfather. A hero by default.

The writer is a freelance journalist based in Mumbai who also writes for some Pakistani newspapers and weeklies.

History Of All India Muslim League.Muslim League established in December 1906, initially led by Aga Khan and ultimately by muhammed ali jinnah, was instrumental in creating public opinion in favour of Muslim nationalism and finally in achieving Pakistan in 1947. The background of the foundation of the Muslim League at Dhaka on 30 December 1906 may be traced back to the establishment of the indian national congress in 1885. The Western educated Hindu elite with the objectives of sharing power with the raj and motivating it to establish representative government in India established the Congress. Sir Syed Ahmed Khan, the most widely respected leader of the Muslim community, warned the Indian Muslims not to join the Congress in the interest of the Muslim community. He started his movement by establishing a college at Aligarh. Sir Syed and like him, many other Muslim leaders believed that the Muslims as a downtrodden nation could get more benefit from the loyalty to the British rather than from any opposition to them. He called upon his followers to devote their energy and attention to popularising English education among the Muslims. This perception and consequent activism has been known as the Aligarh Movement.

In the line of this thought Muslim elite like Nawab Abdul Latif, syed amir ali and others established cultural organisations for propagation of English education among the Muslims in the absence of which the community remained deprived of the benefits of the colonial state. Thus the Muslim cultural organisations like the mohammedan literary society (1863), central national muhamedan association (1877), Sir Syed's United Indian Patriotic Association (1888) and many other local anjumans became more active in social regenerative activities than in politics.

The Muslim leaders of India met informally once a year in a conference to discuss educational problems of the Muslim community and to disseminate the thought of loyalty to the raj. Such a conference (All India Muslim Education Conference) was held at Shahbag in Dhaka in 1906 against the backdrop of the Congress sponsored agitation against the partition of bengal (1905) and the swadeshi movement. Previously, a deputation of Muslim leaders met Governor General lord minto at Simla in order to ventilate problems special to the Muslim community of India. nawab salimullah of Dhaka, the staunchest supporter of the Partition of Bengal, felt the need to form a political party to counter the anti-partition agitation launched by the Congress cadres. He proposed in this conference to make a political platform with the objectives of safeguarding the interests of the Indian Muslims. Nawab Viqar-ul-Mulk, chairman of the conference, supported the motion and thus the All India Muslim League (AIML) came into being.

The objectives of the AIML were to cultivate harmonious relations of the Muslims with other Indian communities, particularly the Hindus. The immediate object of Nawab Salimullah's move for a Muslim political association was to put up a united stand of the Muslims of the subcontinent against a strong Hindu agitation for the annulment of the Partition of Bengal

The Indian nationalist press dismissed the Muslim League as a rickety structure, destined to a speedy dissolution. It is true that initially the League as a political organisation lacked dynamism as it was founded by those persons who had persistently suggested the Muslims of the subcontinent to keep aloof from politics during the second half of the nineteenth century. The Muslim League remained in a moribund condition for full one year after its inception in December 1906. But within a few years younger generation of the Muslims with 'middle class' background and radical ideas found their way into the politics of the Muslim League. They not only discarded the programme of unqualified loyalty to the British rulers, but also challenged the British colonial rule in India and demanded self-government.

The Muslim League did not develop any noticeable political programme, it was never a meaningful organisation politically until Muhammad Ali Jinnah took up its leadership in 1935. Implored by many Muslim leaders, Jinnah returned from London to India and took up the presidency of the Muslim League. In view of the ensuing general elections under the India Act of 1935, Jinnah reorganised and restructured the central and provincial branches of the Muslim League and asked the new committees to get ready for electoral politics ahead.

In the elections held in 1937, the Muslim League had an astounding performance in Bengal. Of the total 482 seats reserved for the Muslims in all nine provinces, the League could secure only 104. As high as 36 seats, more than one third of the total, were bagged from Bengal alone. Party-wise, the Muslim League emerged as the second largest group in the legislature, the first being the Congress. The Bengal victory of the League was said to have been scored on account of the combined support of the Western educated Bengal Muslim professionals and the Muslim landed gentry. The Ulama class, it may be noted, tended to remain aloof from the Muslim League activities.

In 1937, ak fazlul huq, Chief Minister of Bengal, joined the Muslim League and with that his ministry had become virtually a Muslim League one. Using the immense personal popularity of Huq, Bengal was made the fortress for the League. Fazlul Huq as the leader of the Bengal Muslims moved the lahore resolution for independent 'homelands' for the Indian Muslims from the platform of the Muslim League. The Lahore Resolution of 1940 had a tremendous effect on the Bengal Muslim public opinion.

The Muslim League had formed the ministry under the leadership of khwaja nazimuddin in 1943 when Fazlul Huq tendered his resignation on the advice of the Governor, john herbert. The period from 1943 to 1946 was the period for making the Muslim League a real national organisation. Under the leadership of huseyn shaheed suhrawardy and abul hashim, the League became so popular that in the elections of 1946 it bagged 110 seats out of 117 reserved for the Muslims of Bengal. It established the fact that the Muslim League was the sole spokesman of the Bengal Muslim community.

The League performance in other Muslim dominated provinces of India was equally enthusiastic besides the North West Frontier Province which was still under the Congress influence. The performance of the League in the elections of 1946 made its leader Muhammad Ali Jinnah the undisputed leader of the Indian Muslims. So far as the Muslim community was concerned, Jinnah was now inevitably to be consulted with in all negotiations and agreements concerning the transfer of power by the British. Six years after the Lahore Resolution, HS Suhrahardy moved the resolution for 'a Muslim state' at the Delhi Convention of the Muslim Legislators. The Muslim League became the organisation for almost every Indian Muslim when the independence came on 14 August 1947. [Sirajul Islam]

Bengal Provincial Muslim League with the partition of Bengal in 1905, two wings of the Bengal Muslim League were formed separately in the new province of Eastern Bengal and Assam, and in West Bengal. To help forming the Eastern Bengal and Assam Muslim League (EBAML) a provisional committee was formed in early July 1908 with chowdhury kazemuddin ahmad siddiky as president and Nawab Salimullah as secretary. The EBAML was given a concrete shape on 17 March 1911 at a meeting held at ahsan manzil with Nawab Salimullah and Khan Bahadur nawab ali chaudhury as president and secretary respectively. Eleven noted Muslims from East Bengal were elected vice-presidents while Khalilur Rahman and Maulvi Ameruddin Ahmed were elected joint secretaries.

The leadership of the EBAML worked hard to gain support from the AIML in favour of sustaining the new province of Eastern Bengal and Assam in the face of strong Congress opposition. It endeavoured to transform certain Anjumans of district and sub-divisional towns into branches of the League and pleaded to the British authorities for separate electorate and promotion of Muslim education in the form of sending petitions and deputation.

The Calcutta based West Bengal Muslim League (WBML) was formed on 21 January 1909 with Prince Jehander Mirza as president and Syed Shamsul Huda as secretary. Since any literate British Indian Muslim aged 21 years or above could become member of the WBML, its office bearers also included non-Bengali Muslims. The leaders of the WBML often sent representation to the government and adopted resolutions pleading for separate electorates, appointments of Muslims in the government's Executive Council and increasing facilities for Muslim education. But, they hardly cared to work for the permanence of the Partition of Bengal or to organise the League outside Calcutta.

Following the annulment of the Partition of Bengal, the EBAML and the WBML were amalgamated into the Bengal Provincial Muslim League (BPML) as the provincial branch of the AIML on 2 March 1912. Nawab Salimullah was elected its president while Nawab Ali Chaudhury and Zahid Suhrawardy were elected secretaries. Barrister abdur rasul was elected as the treasurer and abul kashem as the joint secretary. It was only after the amalgamation of the EBAML and the WBML into the BPML that the organisation maintained a separate party office and frequently held council meetings. But the Muslim League and for that matter its provincial organs were never meaningful organisations politically until Muhammad Ali Jinnah took up its leadership in 1935. It was from November 1943 that some new and effective measures were undertaken to reorganise the BPML under the guidance of Abul Hashim, the new general secretary of the party. By 1946 the BPML succeeded in building itself up as a mass party, and in the Assembly elections of 1946 it achieved a comprehensive victory capturing 97 per cent of the Muslim seats.

Muslim League leaders from Bengal took the lead in moving vital resolutions affecting the fate of the Indian Muslims. They cherished the desire for the implementation of the Lahore Resolution with the hope for the creation of two Muslim states in the Northwest and Northeast of the subcontinent. The BPML leader Abul Hashim considered the resolution at the Delhi Convention of the Muslim Legislators for 'a Muslim state' as a 'betrayal' to their interests.

Within two years of achieving Independence, the League began to lose popular support. In the mean time maulana abdul hamid khan bhasani and other prominent Muslim Leaguers formed the Awami Muslim League in Dhaka in 1949. Series of labour strikes, communal riots, steep decline in law and order situation, agrarian uprising in some districts, police uprising, soaring prices of essentials, the language issue, and numerous other problems of the new state shattered the high expectations of the people. They now looked for alternative leadership, which was readily provided by the Awami Muslim League of Maulana Bhasani and Krishak Sramik Party of AK Fazlul Huq. These parties including some other smaller parties formed an electoral alliance called united front and in the elections held in March 1954 got as many as 223 seats whereas the Muslim League could win only 8.

Such a defeat of a ruling party is not very unusual, but what is unusual is the fact that the League, being the oldest and a mass based party, could never pick up again in East Pakistan. It could justify its existence wining a couple of seats now and then, though its presence was always marked whenever there was any Martial Law regime, both during the Pakistan as well as Bangladesh periods. [Mohammad Shah]

The two Nation Theory
The two Nation theory was and is a reality, it doesn't matter either indian or other believe it or not. The thing that matter is the people who supported the idea of two separated land are still behind it and fervently trying to consolidate their motherland's position in the world and by the grace of God the Pakistan today is the 6th strongest atomic and military power in the world, its economy is getting better and day by day Pakistan slowly but steadily running on the road of democracy.Jinnah was a very shroud, intelligent, man of word and principles and most upright person of all his adversaries. His whole life is an evidence of non-violent methods to achieve his goals first as an ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity and later a liberator of a nation which was about to fall into the trap of one nation ideology. When he realized that congress covertly was trying to exploit the western style of democracy. Which is undoubtedly fruitful and without question a great success in a homogeneous society like great Britain and likewise,but not in india, because it is not a country but a sub-continent which was and still is a composition of different ethnicities,races and religions and the big partners were/are hindu and muslim. As we know hindu had and still has overwhelmingly majority in India, would have succeeded to power after British Raj and in all this game muslims were just shifting their bondage of slavery from British Raj to Hindu Raj. Jinnah was believer of non violence in politics and thus never ended up in jail, because as I said he does not believe in violence and non democratic tools to get his goal, it is therefore he wasn't a jail bird like Mahatma Gandhi and Nehru. Though Mahatma Gandhi preached non-violence, but covertly used violent methods to yield his goal. And if the reader find himself in disagreement with me then I shall ask you all a question, why on earth, at the end of every protest he (Gandhi)ended up in jail which signals either Mahatma was hypocrite of nature or unable to command the masses. There could be two reason, either he had deficiency and lack of ability to convey his message of non-violence to the recipients of the message or he was disabled by the leaders like Nehru and others.On the death of Quid-e-Azam a well-known congress leader said, If congress had one Quid-e-Azam and muslim league had 50 Gandhi's, 100 Nehru's Pakistan still be an illusion. Lollywood.khalidmbhatti.com

INSTRUMENT OF ACCESSION (Statement by Dr. Karan Singh, Maharajah of Jammu & Kashmir, and former Sadar-e-Riyasat, read out to the participants of the National Integration Convention at Jammu on October 27, 2001, the 54th anniversary of the Accession (VOM News Service, Jammu, October 29, 2001) I had read the statement by the son of former Mahraj of Kashmir Late. H.E Gulab Singh. In his statement he accused Pakistan of invading the Kashmir soon after the independence from the British Raj. This accusation seems unfounded, because at the time of independence Pakistan in no way in a position to invade any country. Pakistan had very limited military power. All Pakistan's military equipment was out of date and insufficient to start an invasion on a territory which not only had its on military as the prince himself stated but assisted by the Indian army. Pakistan had just Torey Dar rifles which is and was produce in the tribal areas of Pakistan till the day. The state of Jammu and Kashmir was sold by the British Raj to Maharajah for Rs. 50,00000 or so including more than 10 million Kashmirs.it was a great humiliation of the people of Kashmir who were overwhelmingly Muslims, it was therefore they been considered as valueless as slugs or ants.According to the document of independence and partition all princely states had the right to join either Pakistan/India or to remain autonomous regions.As I said Kashmir had and still has an overwhelmingly Muslim population and thus wants eagerly to join Pakistan, took up arms against the suppression of Dogharas. Maharajah had great sympathy with India and invited them to tackle the turmoil in Kashmir and after some days, announced the accession of Kashmir to India which had no natural geographical boundary with Kashmir only India had little access from the District Ghurdaspure. The district Ghurdaspure originally had to be a part of Pakistan, because of its large Muslim population. But unfortunately boundary commission Red Culf at the last days of transferring of control to newly independent nation, changed the map and confer Gurdaspure to India with this aim to provide India access to the region and if it hadn't had happen Kashmir would not had been an Atoot Ang of India.After Indian forces enter in the state of Jammu and Kashmir, Kashmirs intensified their struggle to join Pakistan and some tribes of northern areas extended their help to Kashmir is who were their natural allies. The Kashmiris and tribes fought fearlessly with Indians and Doghras and Sri nagar was about to fall when India ran to the U-security council and achieved a ceasefire on this condition that a plebiscite will be held in Kashmir to know the will of the Kashmirs which is still pending, because of Indian rant, Kashmir is its atoot Ang.Now the matter of facts, it is Indian Government which has the key to solve the dispute. And the rule is already accepted by the Indian state to hold plebiscite in Kashmir

If congress had accepted the 15 points of Jinnah the partition of Sub-continent would never had happened. The Congress and Mahasbais were the main culprits of encroachments on Muslim religion, culture and civilization. When Muslims saw their religion, culture and civilization is under threat not only by Hindu extremists organization which were determined to shud all the Muslims and other minorities such as Sikhs and Chooths,so consorted they to depart from the Indian federation. The 15 points were the best safeguard of all Indian minorities and Indian federation. 1) The form of future constitution should be federal residuary powers vested in the province, central Government to have the control only of such matters of common interest as may be guaranteed by the constitution. 2) Uniform measure of autonomy be granted to all provinces. 3) All legislatures in the country and other elected bodies should be reconstituted on the definite principle of adequate and effective representation of minorities in every province without reducing the majority of any province to a minority or even equality. 4) In the central legislature Muslim representation should not be less than one-third. 5) The representation of communal groups should continue to be by means of separate electorates as at present, provided that it should be upon to any community at anytime to abandon its separate electorate in favor of joint electorates. 6) Any territorial redistribution that might at any time be necessary should not in any way effect the Muslim majority in the Punjab, Bengal and North West Frontier Province. 7) Full religious liberty, that is, liberty of belief, worship. Observances, propaganda, association and education should be guaranteed to all communities. 8) No bill or resolution, or any part thereof , should be passed in any legislature or any other elected body, if three fourths of the members of community in that particular body oppose such a bill or resolution or part thereof, on the ground that it would be injurious to the interests of that community or, in the alternative, such other method is devised as may be found feasible and practicable to deal with such cases. 9) Sind should be separated from the Bombay presidency. 10) Reforms should be introduced in the North Frontier Province and Baluchistan on the same footing as in other provinces. 11) Provision should be made in the constitution giving the Muslim as adequate share along with other Indians in all the services of the state and in self-governing bodies, having due regard to the requirements of efficiency. 12) The constitution should embody adequate safe guards for the protection of Muslim religion,culture and personal laws, Muslim charitable institutions, and for their due share in grant ?in-aid given by the state and by self governing bodies. 13) No cabinet, either central or provincial, should be formed without there being a proportion of Muslim ministers of at least one-third. 14) No change. To be made in the constitution by the central legislature except with the concurrence of the states constituting the Indian federation. 15) That in the present circumstances the representation of Muslmans in the different legislatures of the country, and of the other elected bodies through separate electorates is inevitable, and further, Government being pledged not to deprive the Musalmans of this right, it cannot be taken away without their consent, and so long as the musalmans are not satisfied that their rights and interests are safeguarded in the manner specified above (or herein) they would in no way consent to the establishment of joint electorates with or without conditions.

An reply to Mr. Ishtiaq Ahmed's Article in The Daily Times of Pakistan.
I have gotten an opportunity to read your article"Religion column and enlightened moderation", in the Daily time,which had have disturbed me and forced me to respond that how could a person like you be so ignorant of history and ruthless to distort the facts.Yours assertions and insistence sic"In Pakistan, we might not be able to play even that role because we have a long history, predating the country?s emergence, of exploiting religion to achieve quick political results ? when we outmaneuvered the 50-year long freedom struggle of the Indian National Congress by dubbing it as Hindu nationalist and a cover for Hindu Raj. The Muslim League deployed the most reactionary ulema, the Barelvis, to address public meetings. These ulema let loose a battery of religious slogans, even captivating the imagination of Muslim intelligentsia which joined the fray enthusiastically. Brilliant strategy. We attained Pakistan without any of our leaders ever having to spend a single day in a prison for opposing British colonial rule",.tantamount to shed water on the achievements of the Quaid-e- Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah.

He or other Muslim League's leadership's absence from the prison was, because they believed in Democratic and non-violent methods to achieve their goal of freedom. The Quaid-e-Azam was the man of Honor, dignity and words. While his adversaries such as Mahatma Gandhi and Nehuro, despite their proclamations of non-violence often ended up to using and provoking violence and thus ended up in the jail. The Gandhi and Nehru was the great hypocrites, they used to say one thing in the public and other back in the collisions, and this was the reason they visited and revisited prisons.

A respected, Congressi leader Sarojni Naido,tributes the quaid, ,in these words",if Muslim league had hundred Gandhi's and Nehru's and Congress had one Muhammad Ali Jinnah Pakistan would still be dream.

The Quaid was not ismaili, because of his own statement, he was a Sunni Rajput who's family was moved from west Punjab to Kathiawar, Gujarat and one of his ancestor married himself with a Khoja woman and thus because of mingling up with Khojas, people began to consider them Khojas as well.And if he was a Khoja Muslim. does this watershed his achievement and struggle that he made for the Muslim of Sub-continent.

And if the Pakistan was a creation just because of the opposition of the Indian National Congress, then their would had been no need and reason to achieve an independent homeland for Muslims of the sub-continent. The Pakistan was a dream of Iqbal, Sir Sayyed Ahmed Khan and Chuadry Muhammad Ali who conceived the idea of Pakistan, and if you just look at the word Pakistan you will get to know that prefix Pak- means Muslim in farsi and suffix" Stan, means place or country so Pakistan mean the land of Muslims.

This country was achieved in the name of Islam to provide its habitants the atmosphere, where they could practice their religion and culture, but unfortunately the dream was high jacked by the secular forces, which had has great opportunity to run this country, and thus succeeded in their efforts to corrupt the basis and fundament of Pakistan movement. They nurtured and educated some elites and belied them of secular foundation of Pakistan which was not correct.You know, what our problem is that our intellectuals like you been high jacked by the secular ideologies. The ruling elites got their education in the western educational institutions, where they been brain washed and returned back to rule us.

Tell me when in the 58 years history of Pakistan Ulema had and has gotten opportunity to run this country? And if your answer is no, so how could they bring change or be a reason to destabilize it.

The Mian Mumtaz Daultana, Ayub Khan, Yahya Khan, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, Benazir Nawaz Shrifs and Musharraf all were/are secularist and openly used to say they are not fundamentalists, what good they have brought about in Pakistan? It is the curse of Secularism that we are not progressing and we are dwindling into the hope and hopelessness.

The laws that are being imposed on Pakistani people are of the secular criteria and has the same consequences as if Islamic laws been enforced on the secular societies of the west. These secular laws and regulations are playing havoc in our society.